Dem Debates

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not naive enough to believe:

1. That Bernie could even win this election, or

2. That if he did, he could triumph over the establishment and implement his policies

This is where I disagree with you lune.

1. I believe you should say, that Bernie could'nt win the NOMINATION. Which, I think is untrue. I still think there is huge chance that he can, and should he, he would win the election. The republican party will not. I remember how close of an election the last one felt vs how it actually was when it was all over. Mitt Romney lost by 132 electoral votes.. that's by like basically 75% of the vote... republicans don't stand a chance this year either. They are even more fractured than they were then, and their candidates are even less appealing. Whoever wins the democratic nomination, will become the next president.

2. This reminds me of the type of thing my dad says, where he thinks the president is more of a figure head than someone who can make any real changes. But that's just not true. Our president just veto's shit the religious extremest in congress try to pass left and right, national health care was his idea, the war in Iraq was a presidents personal choice. Bernie would achieve A LOT in his time in the office, that would make each of our lives drastically better. Maybe not so much for any player here that lives in a billionaire mansion, but that person still wont notice any real change. They'll still sit among their marble columns in front of their computer neckbearding as if nothing changed.

The only thing we have to do is get Bernie past Hillary.. its an uphill climb, but its one that seems more and more likely as we make it.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You see, here's the thing. Alan Greenspan wasn't in charge of expanding or shrinking the government. He was in charge of monetary policy. He implemented objectivist/libertarian monetary policy.

I'm pretty sure libertarian monetary policy would have been to abolish the Fed's interest rate target and instead letting the rate float freely to its market value. He purposefully set the interest rate well below the known market value to goose the economy. I'm not sure how you claim such a move is the implementation of libertarian monetary policy, but I'm intrigued as to how you'll square that, so go for it.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ah, so now you agree with batshit insane Sanders. Even if man continues pumping out CO2 like no tomorrow, the world will still be quite habitable in 100, 500, and 1000 years. But no yeah, keep on saying things that not even the most pessimistic of scientists predict. It makes you look like you're smarter than the collective knowledge of mankind. It really does.

Making these types of statements are just hogwash unless you actually post something to defend your position that the scientific community agree's on.

You are just a nerd that plays free games on the internet, I will never take your word on climate change seriously.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The government must answer to the people, corporations must not if they want to make the most amount of money possible.

Yeah, I think I learned that in business 101. Shit all over your customers as much as possible and under no circumstances are you to do what they want. The customer is always wrong.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Making these types of statements are just hogwash unless you actually post something to defend your position that the scientific community agree's on.

You are just a nerd that plays free games on the internet, I will never take your word on climate change seriously.

I don't care if you take my word seriously. You've proven yourself time and again to be one of the dumbest inhabitants of these forums. And I know you probably didn't get that way through rational argument and examination of the evidence, so why would I try to use those tools to argue you out of your mental state?

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, I think I learned that in business 101. Shit all over your customers as much as possible and under no circumstances are you to do what they want. The customer is always wrong.

tell that to the single largest media corperation on the planet, comcast... those 1950's ideals about customer service really have gotten them places eh? /sarcasm off

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't care if you take my word seriously. You've proven yourself time and again to be one of the dumbest inhabitants of these forums. And I know you probably didn't get that way through rational argument and examination of the evidence, so why would I try to use those tools to argue you out of your mental state?

cool I like how you just throw insults at me instead of defending your stance with a fact even once.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm pretty sure libertarian monetary policy would have been to abolish the Fed's interest rate target and instead letting the rate float freely to its market value. He purposefully set the interest rate well below the known market value to goose the economy. I'm not sure how you claim such a move is the implementation of libertarian monetary policy, but I'm intrigued as to how you'll square that, so go for it.

Because his ideology wasn't purely libertarian, but had an objectivist slant. It was intended to stimulate economic activity, just like you said. (With a trickle-down motive)

But what really fucked things up wasn't so much his interest rates, but the actions on behalf of Greenspan and his cronies that served to reduce the amount of rules and regulations financial institutions were subjected to, under the impression that financial institutions operating in as close to a free market environment as possible would be more prosperous. This is what I mean when I say 'his libertarian policies'.

And as we've discussed before, although this was termed 'deregulation', it actually produced an increase in regulatory volume because these laws, which essentially gave financial institutions increased freedom to act how they wanted, manifested legislatively as laws and rules. In essence, a large volume of new federal rules and regulations decreased the extent to which the government regulated and oversaw the behaviors of financial institutions. The net effect being the deregulation of the financial sector.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm pretty sure libertarian monetary policy would have been to abolish the Fed's interest rate target and instead letting the rate float freely to its market value. He purposefully set the interest rate well below the known market value to goose the economy.

Yes. Greenspan was the chairman of the Federal Reserve; his entire job was to manipulate the economy. That's not very libertarian. He directly caused the 2008 housing crash by lowering interest rates after the dot-com crash, then raising them in 2006 before leaving things to his protégé Bernanke, who is now building an even bigger bubble which will burst fairly soon now.

However, I suspect Lune was referring to abolishing Glass-Steagall. I personally would have kept that law, as I think it's one of just a few regulations that actually have a net positive, but even there I don't think its repeal was nearly as critical as the bank bailout. If we had simply let our banks go broke, we would have emerged from the crisis just fine (Iceland is a great example here). Instead, and this is where the corruption thing comes in, we bailed them out to the tune of 15 trillion dollars.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is where I disagree with you lune.

1. I believe you should say, that Bernie could'nt win the NOMINATION. Which, I think is untrue. I still think there is huge chance that he can, and should he, he would win the election. The republican party will not. I remember how close of an election the last one felt vs how it actually was when it was all over. Mitt Romney lost by 132 electoral votes.. that's by like basically 75% of the vote... republicans don't stand a chance this year either. They are even more fractured than they were then, and their candidates are even less appealing. Whoever wins the democratic nomination, will become the next president.

2. This reminds me of the type of thing my dad says, where he thinks the president is more of a figure head than someone who can make any real changes. But that's just not true. Our president just veto's shit the religious extremest in congress try to pass left and right, national health care was his idea, the war in Iraq was a presidents personal choice. Bernie would achieve A LOT in his time in the office, that would make each of our lives drastically better. Maybe not so much for any player here that lives in a billionaire mansion, but that person still wont notice any real change. They'll still sit among their marble columns in front of their computer neckbearding as if nothing changed.

The only thing we have to do is get Bernie past Hillary.. its an uphill climb, but its one that seems more and more likely as we make it.

Maybe you're right, but this is the country that went with Bush over Gore, and Bush over Kerry, that idolizes Ronald Reagan, and genuinely believes Socialism is an evil Soviet cult full of people who wear red and want to eliminate all private enterprise.

When the older generations die shit will change. USA will shift left. Politically we've always lagged behind Europe by about a generation, don't forget we're not just progressing for ourselves but for the South too.